Thanks for clarifying that, @Brian. Yeah. It took a bit to warm up to that
approach, but the github.com/jackc/pgtypes convinced me that the results
were worth it. The benefits: A, package interpretation methods with a
piece of data, B, lazily valuate data when needed, and C, gain
introspective capability specific to the type and not using reflect
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 4:47:32 AM UTC-5 Brian Candler wrote:
> That wasn't literal code with anglebrackets - you're supposed to fill that
> in yourself. I think he meant something like:
>
> type fooString struct{ string }
>
> https://go.dev/play/p/4Q94xMZDciV
>
> What this is doing is *embedding* a string value into a struct; if you
> have not come across type embedding before then Google for the details.
>
> You still cannot use one of these types transparently as a string, but you
> can use
> x.string
> instead of
> string(x)
> to extract the value.
>
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 06:48:04 UTC+1 yan.z...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam! Your solution does not seem to work:
>>
>> package main
>>
>> import(
>> "fmt"
>> "strconv"
>> )
>>
>> type <Purpose> String struct{string}
>>
>> func (s String) print(){
>> fmt.Println(s)
>> }
>>
>> func main() {
>> var a String ="hello, world\n"
>>
>> a.print()
>>
>> fmt.Println(strconv.ParseInt("78",10, 64))
>>
>> var x String ="452"
>>
>> n, _ := strconv.ParseInt(x, 10, 64)
>> }
>>
>> 在2022年3月26日星期六 UTC+8 06:41:15<sam.a....@gmail.com> 写道：
>>
>>>
>>> My workaround like is something like `type <Purpose>String
>>> struct{string}. It can be reasonably treated as a string for most cases in
>>> which as string is needed, and it lets you convert back conveniently from
>>> any scope in which it's reasonable for your program to know the difference.
>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-5 Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>> My own preference is to have a small number of methods and put the
>>>> general functionalities into functions. By putting the general
>>>> functionalities into functions, you allow code reuse. In object-oriented
>>>> programming, you normally attach as many functionalities as possible to
>>>> their corresponding types and achieve code reuse via inheritance. Since Go
>>>> does not have inheritance, you can achieve a similar effect with
>>>> standalone
>>>> functions.
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:26:51 AM UTC+7 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 7:17 PM Zhaoxun Yan <yan.z...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I just came across this taboo in golang - new methods cannot be
>>>>> added to an existing type:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. If we didn't have this prohibition, then the set of interfaces
>>>>> satisfied by a type would depend on which package was using the type.
>>>>>
>>>>> See the discussion at https://go.dev/issue/21401.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/18613c1d-adf6-4a35-bf00-005b3df798den%40googlegroups.com.
